HUGHES -v- GOY [2002] WASCA 137

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 137
Published:	20/05/2002
Case No:	SJA:1053/2002	Heard:	16 MAY 2002
Coram:	MILLER J	Delivered:	16/05/02
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Order for parole eligibility made
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	RONALD PATRICK HUGHES ASHLEY GRAHAM KEITH GOY
Catchwords:	Criminal law Sentence Parole Principles to be applied Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Sentencing Act 1995, s 89(2)
Case References:	Manson v Anderson & Anor [2001] WASCA 399 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : HUGHES -v- GOY [2002] WASCA 137 CORAM : MILLER J HEARD : 16 MAY 2002 DELIVERED : 16 MAY 2002 PUBLISHED : 20 MAY 2002 FILE NO/S : SJA 1053 of 2002 BETWEEN : RONALD PATRICK HUGHES

Appellant

AND

ASHLEY GRAHAM KEITH GOY

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentence - Parole - Principles to be applied - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Sentencing Act 1995, s 89(2)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Order for parole eligibility made

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr D R Love

Respondent : Ms R N Johnston

Solicitors:

Appellant : Legal Aid of Western Australia

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Manson v Anderson & Anor [2001] WASCA 399

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 MILLER J: On the hearing of this appeal I allowed the appeal and varied the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Magistrate by ordering that the appellant be eligible for parole. I then undertook to give reasons for that decision and these are the reasons.

2 The appellant was charged in the Court of Petty Sessions, Kununurra that on 6 March 2002 at Kununurra he, with intent to sell to another, had in his possession a prohibited drug, namely cannabis, contrary to the provisions of s 6(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981.

3 The appellant pleaded guilty to the offence and was dealt with in the Court of Petty Sessions at Kununurra on 20 March 2002. He was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, which sentence was backdated to 7 March 2002. No order for eligibility for parole was made.

4 The appellant appeals from the learned Magistrate's refusal to order eligiblity for parole, contending that there was an error in that regard and the learned Magistrate failed to take into account the following relevant matters:

"(i) the bias towards eligibility for parole suggested by the philosophy of the

Sentencing Act 1995

(WA);

(ii) that, given the record and family circumstances of the Appellant, he was deserving of the mitigating benefit of parole upon punishment as well as the opportunity for rehabilitation;

(iii) the nature and circumstances of the offence;

(iv) the likely circumstances of the Appellant at the time of his release."

5 The facts put before the learned Magistrate at the hearing revealed that at about 8.45pm on 7 March 2002 police conducted surveillance…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Hughes v Goy

Details

AGLC: Hughes v Goy [2002] WASCA 137
Case: [2002] WASCA 137
Decision Date: 20 MAY 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hughes v Goy involved the appellant, Hughes, who was appealing against the decision of the respondent, Goy, who was the President of the Corrective Services Parole Board of New South Wales. The central issue in the dispute was the decision made by the respondent to deny the appellant's eligibility for parole. The matter was heard in the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The appellant contended that the decision was flawed and should be overturned, while the respondent argued that the decision was lawful and should be upheld.

The court had to determine whether the principles applied by the respondent in denying parole eligibility were appropriate and whether the decision was based on valid and relevant considerations. The court considered the statutory framework governing parole eligibility and the relevant case law that set out the principles to be applied in such matters. The court also examined the specific circumstances of the case, including the nature and seriousness of the appellant's offence, the risk of re-offending, and the appellant's progress in rehabilitation. The court held that the decision to deny parole eligibility was flawed as the respondent had not properly applied the relevant principles and had not adequately considered the appellant's progress in rehabilitation.

The court found that the respondent had not properly balanced the principles of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation in reaching the decision. The court held that the decision was based on an incorrect application of the law and that the respondent had failed to consider all relevant factors. The court also held that the decision was not supported by the evidence and that the appellant had made sufficient progress in rehabilitation to be eligible for parole. The court allowed the appeal and made an order for the appellant to be eligible for parole.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Order for parole eligibility made

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.